The Mission Bay Alliance and the mother of a six-year-old with a congenital heart condition have just filed suit in Alameda Superior Court, “arguing that the University of California at San Francisco (“UCSF”) illegally signed an agreement with the Golden State Warriors that would give away state property to private parties and pose potentially grave health and safety dangers to Bay Area residents.”

The lawsuit, which aims to upend San Francisco’s recent approval for the Warriors’ proposed Mission Bay Arena, alleges inappropriate behavior from a number of public officials including Mayor Ed Lee, whom, according to the complaint, “threatened to retaliate against UCSF if it continued its opposition to the proposed Warrior’s stadium.”

And at the heart of the suit, which is likely to be the first of many, the plaintiffs argue that UCSF’s agreement with the Warriors, which paved the way for the arena development to move forward, “violates state law, because UCSF Chancellor Sam Hawgood lacked authority to negotiate or sign the agreement without the approval of the UC Board of Regents, who have not expressed support for the project.”

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

Probably won’t accomplish much, but at least assures ownership will have to keep the team viable for a few extra weeks beyond 20XX (whatever the construction timeline is) to assure enough seat license sales.

Why would you reference the former ownership group? The post I replied to called out this ownership group, specifically. In terms of this ownership group, the very group taking them to SF, they are historically great. So, you’re wrong.

In the past they weren’t very good. Hey, I followed them in the Mullin, Hardaway, Mitch Richmond, Manute Bol years. I think they’ll be good for a number of years but in the past they weren’t – that’s a fact.

@James – I’ve been following them for years, and even when they weren’t very good, they were still selling out Oracle. The Dubs’ fan base is considered one of the most loyal and passionate in the NBA. Anyone who knows anything about basketball knows this, which makes the OP’s statement even more absurd.

Oh I see. You parsed my usage of historically. Kind of a reach there James, given the historic win streak or the fact that their 2014-2015 championship run is a top 10 all time season. They’re already historically significant and it’s really not debatable. Come on now.

Calm down…nobody died; the point of lead posts is to say provocative things that attract other posts, and hence readers – remember back in Jr. High when you learned how writing a check allowed other people to write checks and eventually support the whole national economy ?? this works the same way – and with (already) a half-dozen responses I think it’s been successful.

As for the concept (of cash-out-and fold) itself, I don’t think I’d call it cynical; I’d call it something that frequently happens…you’ve been seeing it most every Sunday. Maybe it’s intentional; maybe it’s not; but it happens. Will it happen here?? I don’t know. Perhaps ownership has only the best of intentions and that happy state of affairs will always stay that way. But given that they plan to move to a facility that costs +/- $50K/seat to build – the interest alone which would run to $30+/game – you can be sure paying for it will be a big concern. I don’t think that’s cynical, i think it’s not being gullible

the 49ers sold their soul when they picked kaepernick over alex smith, and the team fell apart. no one expected niners to win championships this year or last. their ownership is horrible and they will enver be great under current ownership. they also moved their stadium from the center of the bay area to a suburb most people ahve never been to.

Warriors have probably 2nd or 3rd best coach in basketball, reigning MVP, best defensive player, 1st and 2nd best 3 point shooter, best defensive unit, and great ownership. they are moving from an outpost to the center of the action. Very different story

don’t tell me what the point of something is or isn’t. what you said was silly, as clearly this ownership group has quickly proven they’re about winning. So you like to flame message boards. Awesome bro.

How mellow dramatic. This was expected and I would expect no less than five more lawsuits to be filed. This is a sound plan and the few millionaires who belong to the alliance are upset. No different than the progressive liberals in the Mission wanting their rent to be $500.

80% – 90% of anybody living near any proposed big project is opposed. The point isn’t that most people aren’t NIMBYs about their backyard. Most people probably ARE NIMBY’s about their backyard – and the bigger the project, the more people are NIMBY’s.

The point is that when planning a city – or region for that matter – we really should NOT give a squat what the NIMBYs think.

Can we sue the plaintiffs? I mean, I don’t care a whit about basketball myself, and don’t even really care about the Arena – but I want to see the decisions of professionals respected and development move forward in an efficient and timely manner, not be bogged down in countless stonewalling lawsuits.

Let’s see… these guys are on record as wishing to preserve the land for ultimate biomedical purposes of UCSF, with questionable standing have seized upon a pretense issue in order to secure that remedy and promises to “litigate, litigate, litigate until the cows come home.”

They filed suit in Oakland. Is this a San Francisco mother or an Oakland mother . . . That is, is the kid even a patient at SF Children’s or Oakland Children’s? And what’s in it for her to be used in this way?

I would move to change venue to San Francisco where juries aren’t so sympathetic to moms in general. Alameda County is pro-plaintiff with crazy liberal juries to boot.

Like the SF residents would necessarily want to go to UCSF for treatment when there are a bunch of hospital options from which to choose. Why doesn’t the current UCSF administration just announce who the former UCSF leaders comprising the Mission Bay Alliance is? It is looking like a barrel of snakes.

“violates state law, because UCSF Chancellor Sam Hawgood lacked authority to negotiate or sign the agreement without the approval of the UC Board of Regents, who have not expressed support for the project.”

Ummm yeah – let’s see, UCSF sold it to Salesforce who then sold it to the Warriors – private property now. You would have to argue that Salesforce had no right to the property in the first place when they bought it to build their campus and NOT a biomedical facility. Seriously?

The BOS ought to be able to change (or create exception to) law that they made. They created the height limits and should be able to override them, both as a matter of law and of common sense.

As for 8 Washington, it took a ballot challenge to change what they did there and a ballot challenge could undo the Warriors plans though I doubt it would pass as 8 Washington did. Actually, the need to take that one to the ballot goes against your argument because it wouldn’t have been necessary if the BOS had no power to make exception to its own zoning decisions.

I view this as no different than the “Wall” people, with one major exception…no matter what traffic mitigation measures are take circulation will be a *itch during games and events. That is my prediction and you don’t have to be a transportation planner to figure that out.

As a matter of law, that hardly matters. The relative priority of land uses should be a political decision and political leaders should have the power to give professional sports priority over health care if they want to (I am not necessarily endorsing such a decision). I’ve been a doctor for over 40 years and I understand the value of health care, but San Francisco politicians quite legally make many decisions I don’t agree with. They have that right and power. I really don’t see a legitimate legal case here . . . or standing.

I have literally had it with these arguments about traffic and this arena. This is a major city, and along with that is going to be congestion, accept and move on if not I hear Brentwood and Tracy are nice and quiet well except having to deal with the traffic of the 580/680 interchange…there goes that traffic problem again. People are up in arms about how difficult it will be to navigate the area come event times and access to UCSF and it is a pointless futile argument. With no arena to deal with if i needed to get to CPMC (either campus), i’d have to deal with traffic no matter what way i go, same goes with SFGeneral, St. Luke’s, St. Mary’s, etc. and none of them has some guaranteed means or provisions for access. They are currently building the new CPMC (Cathedral Hill Campus) on Van Ness and there are no provisions that CPMC develop a traffic plan other than the 14 million they gave to SFMTA to waste for bus rapid transit. So why then can this Alliance presume to exert concerns about traffic in a much less congested area, along with every other frivolous complaint including ambient noise from an indoor arena over development.

Does this stand to reason that the Mission Bay Alliance is then also going to block the Pier 70 development and much of the central waterfront plan because that certainly will not ease congestion and will have a much greater impact upon the area than a single arena ever could given that buildout will consist of daily impacts of residents, commercial and retail conglomeration.

The Mission Bay Alliance along with the Potrero Hill detractors are up in arms because they all feel they aren’t being served first and foremost from this development (nor should they). Period. As a lifelong resident of San Francisco if you live in Potrero Hill and somehow believe this arena is going to destroy your commute/access then you clearly have not explored Potrero Hill and i implore you to discover this thing called a map (hardcopy or digital). I fail to see how Salesforce’s multi-use campus proposal that was to include retail, commercial and potentially a conference venue is all that far away from the the arena proposal, aside from views to which you are not entitled. Amazing how quickly Potrero Hill has gone NIMBY!

Absolutely right on! These rich folks only care about themselves–no one else includes the exploited mother in this lawsuit, probably paid for consultant. Names of those in the Alliance need to be exposed as these are very wealthy people who will want box seats/game privileges, and Warriors management should try to deny these same people of access to games…if you are that opposed to it, then you should not be part of it.

I moved here 6 years ago, and AS a homeowner and parent in the neighborhood I found it important to get involved, particularly as the physical safety concerns are higher than in my previous neighborhood.

I went to a Booster meeting, a GPR meeting, as well as a community hearing on 1601 Mariposa, and while I expected a fair bit of narrow-mindedness I was shocked by the level of angry obstructionism and incredibly bad manners. And don’t get me started on the Nextdoor community.

By the time the City take down I- 280 – dumping all the traffic on 7th Street, narrows 16th Street to 2 lanes – bus priority, and tears up 3rd Street to build the HSR/ Calrain extension to the new Transbay terminal, the whole area will pretty much be walking only. Everyone down there will be much much healthier …. The City will need neither sportsball palaces or hospitals….